Citation NR: 9705278
Decision Date: 02/19/97 Archive Date: 03/04/97
DOCKET NO. 90-44 148 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston,
Texas
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back
disorder.
2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.
3. Entitlement to service connection for boils of the groin
and arm pit areas.
4. Entitlement to service connection for ingrown toenails.
5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left
salpingo-oophorectomy.
6. Entitlement to service connection for a muscle strain in
the left shoulder area.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
B. Lemoine, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from April 1975 to
April 1979.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received this case on
appeal from an August 1989 rating decision of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied
the veteran's claims seeking entitlement to service
connection for a low back disorder, hypertension and boils of
the groin and arm pit areas. Also appealed was a May 1990
rating decision which denied entitlement to service
connection for ingrown toenails and residuals of a left
salpingo-oophorectomy, and an October 1991 rating decision
which denied service connection for a muscle strain in the
left shoulder area.
The case was twice previously before the Board, in January
1991 and September 1992, and was remanded on both occasions
to the RO for additional evidentiary development. Following
compliance with the Board’s directives on Remand, a June 1996
rating decision of the RO continued the denial of the
veteran's claims. The case is now returned to the Board.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran and her representative contend, in essence, that
service connection is warranted for all her claimed
disorders.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1996), has reviewed and considered
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's
claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in
this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is
the decision of the Board that the evidence of record is in
relative equipoise with respect to the veteran's claim of
service connection for residuals of a left salpingo-
oophorectomy.
It is further the decision of the Board that the veteran has
not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient
to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that
she has presented well-grounded claims of service connection
for hypertension, boils of the groin and arm pit areas and
ingrown toenails.
(See the Remand portion of this document for an explanation
of further action required before the Board can adjudicate
the remaining issues on appeal, entitlement to service
connection for a low back disorder and a muscle strain in the
left shoulder area.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable
disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the
RO.
2. The veteran was treated for abdominal pain and excessive
uterine bleeding on numerous occasions during her service.
3. The medical evidence of record indicates that the veteran
underwent a left salpingo-oophorectomy slightly more than one
year after her service. The medical evidence of record
further indicates a great probability that a fibroid tumor
removed during that surgery was present during the veteran's
service.
4. The evidence of record tends to show that the veteran's
residuals of a left salpingo-oophorectomy did, as likely as
not, arise out of a disease or injury during her service.
5. Although there is medical evidence of record indicating
that the veteran is currently diagnosed with hypertension,
there is no competent evidence to show that this disorder is
in any way related to any disease or injury in service.
6. Although there is medical evidence of record indicating
that the veteran was treated in service for boils of the
groin and arm pit areas and ingrown toenails, recent VA
examinations showed no related current disability.
7. The veteran has not submitted competent evidence
sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial
individual that she has presented plausible claims of service
connection for hypertension, boils of the groin and arm pit
areas and ingrown toenails.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The veteran has a residual disability of a left salpingo-
oophorectomy due to disease which was incurred in service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp.
1996); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (1996).
2. The veteran has not submitted well-grounded claims of
service connection for hypertension, boils of the groin and
arm pit areas and ingrown toenails. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101,
1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1996);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (1996).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
I. Factual Background
Careful review of service medical records reveals that on
enlistment examination in January 1975, the veteran's blood
pressure was 120/70. The veteran also reported a prior
history of having cysts removed from both breasts in 1971 and
also for having venereal disease. Otherwise, the enlistment
examination was normal. In December 1975, the veteran was
treated for menstrual cramps and also a boil in the pubic
area. Examination indicated the boil was very tender, but
with no puss. Soaking in warm water was prescribed.
Numerous clinical records throughout 1976 indicate the
veteran was treated for severe cramping and excessive
bleeding associated with her menstrual cycle. The veteran
was also treated on several occasions for related abdominal
pain. The assessment was dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
In January 1977, the veteran was treated at the podiatry
clinic for an infected left hallux. A service clinical
record from March 1977 reported that the veteran fell down a
flight of stairs sustaining a trauma injury to the coccyx.
There was no fracture indicated. There was no discoloration
and no edema. There was tenderness on palpation and
decreased range of motion with pain. The veteran was
prescribed sitz baths and pain medication and placed on light
duty. In September 1977, the veteran complained of a lump in
the pubic area and the impression was cellulitis.
In January 1978, the veteran received treatment for an
abscess in the right arm pit. In July 1978, the veteran
received treatment for an abscess in the right groin area. A
subsequent clinical record reported the abscess resolving.
The veteran was also treated on several occasions in 1978 for
a thick vaginal discharge, diagnosed as vaginal candidiasis.
In August 1978, the veteran complained of upper back and
trapezius muscle spasms. Range of motion was limited and the
assessment was muscle spasms. Bed rest and muscle relaxers
were prescribed. In December 1978, the veteran was treated
for complaints of a stiff neck and stiff trapezius area. Bed
rest and heat were prescribed. In February 1979, the veteran
was treated for an abscess on the right pubis and sitz baths
were prescribed. A subsequent clinical record in February
1979 reported the abscess was much improved. On separation
examination in April, 1979, blood pressure was reported as
120/70. The remainder of the examination was entirely
negative.
The veteran also underwent a reenlistment examination in July
1984, subsequent to her service. At that time, the veteran
reported she was in good health and taking no medications.
Her blood pressure was 130/80. The veteran did report a
history of having a tumor removed in 1980.
Received in February 1990 were private medical records from
P. W. Lee, M.D., which revealed treatment of the veteran from
September 1985 through February 1990. These reveal the
ongoing diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. These also
reveal ongoing treatment for the veteran’s complaints of low
back pain, lower abdominal pain, and vaginal discharge.
A February 1990 letter from K. C. Johnson, M.D., reported
that the veteran had been treated from June 1980 until
September 1980. When she initially presented she complained
of pain in the right lower quadrant for the past year. She
was noted to have a large uterus fibroid and in August 1980
she underwent dilation and curettage, myomectomy and left
salpingo-oophorectomy, with the pathology report showing a
leiomyomata chronic salpingitis and chronic perioophoritis
with adhesions. The veteran was described as doing well post
operatively and Dr. Johnson stated he was unaware of any
subsequent disability regarding the veteran.
Received in March 1990 were private medical records from G.
E. Guster, M.D., which revealed treatment of the veteran from
November 1982 through February 1983. These indicated the
veteran had been treated for ingrown toenails in November
1982 and underwent surgery for bilateral hallux nails.
Received in July 1990 were the veteran's VA outpatient
treatment records from November 1981 through May 1985. These
indicated the veteran was treated periodically for complaints
of low back pain, abdominal pain, irregular menses and
vaginal discharge. These further indicated that the veteran
was initially diagnosed with hypertension in December 1981.
A December 1982 clinical record reported treatment for left
shoulder pain. The veteran reported the shoulder pain had
started one week previously and the diagnosis was muscle
spasm.
Received in July 1990 was a private medical record from J.
Ross, M.D., which indicated the veteran had been treated for
ingrown toenails in February 1990. Surgical procedures were
recommended for bilateral infected hallux nails.
Following the Board’s January 1991 remand, the veteran
underwent VA examination in May 1991. On general
examination, the veteran gave a history that she did not have
hypertension in the military, but it was first diagnosed in
1981 and she had been treated with medication since.
Regarding her residuals of a left salpingo-oophorectomy, the
veteran reported a history of having undergone a surgery in
1980 as a result of a large fibroid growth in the uterus.
She indicated she still suffers from lower abdominal pain
during her period which she had been told was caused by her
uterus. The veteran also complained of recurrent infection
of her toenails due to residuals of a ingrown toenails and
also chronic low back pain which she attributed to a fall in
1977 that injured her coccyx. The veteran indicated that she
also believed her muscle strain in the left shoulder was
secondary to the coccyx injury.
On VA orthopedic examination in May 1991, the veteran was
diagnosed with coccydynia, status post fall, moderately
symptomatic; chronic lumbosacral strain, mildly to moderately
symptomatic; and a strain of the rhomboid major, left
scapular region, mildly to moderately symptomatic. X-ray
study of the lumbosacral spine indicated evidence of early
degenerative changes in the entire lumbar spine. X-ray study
of the left shoulder indicated no acute fracture or
dislocation, and minimal arthritic changes were noted.
On VA general examination in May 1991, there were no findings
of residuals of boils of the groin and arm pit areas. There
were no cysts visible or palpable. There were no
inflammation or induration noted. The veteran pointed to an
area in the pubic hair, where supposedly boils were lanced,
but there were no detectable scars. Examination of the feet
showed mild onychomycosis of the toenails, mainly on the
great toes. There was no present induration or inflammatory
changes as a result of ingrown toenails shown. Among the
diagnoses were chronic left shoulder pain and chronic low
back pain based on the orthopedic examination, history of
recurrent infections secondary ingrown toenails,
hypertension, and status post resection of uterine fibroma in
the left salpingo-oophorectomy.
Based on the above evidence, an October 1991 rating decision
granted the veteran service connection for coccydynia,
assigning a 10 percent disability evaluation.
Following the Board’s second remand, in September 1992,
additional private medical records were received in January
1994 from K. C. Johnson, M.D., and the Tri-City Hospital.
These indicated that in June 1980, the veteran reported a
history of abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant for the
past year. A fibroid uterus was identified. In August 1980,
the veteran underwent a left salpingo-oophorectomy. The post
operative diagnoses were chronic left salpingo-oophoritis
with hydrosalpinx and metrorrhagia. It was reported that
findings at surgery included a large fundral fibroid with a
broad base. The left ovary was cystic with clubbed tube and
multiple filmy adhesions. The abnormal tube and ovary were
removed and the fundal fibroid excised.
On VA examination of the spine in March 1994, there was pain
on palpation of the coccyx. There was also pain on palpation
of the left iliolumbar ligament between L5 and S1 with pain
on bending laterally to the right and twisting to the left.
Range of motion in the lumbar spine was normal. There was
point of tenderness pain on palpation of the origin of the
left gluteus medius muscle in the mid portion of the ilium.
Examination of the left shoulder revealed a full range of
motion and no spasm or pain on palpation.
On VA examination of the spine in July 1994, the examiner
reviewed the veteran's service medical records and commented
on the coccyx trauma experienced in service. The examiner
commented that there was no indication of lumbar or shoulder
injury in service. The examiner indicated that while the
veteran claimed to have suffered a lumbar injury in service
this was not documented, although the veteran did currently
experience tenderness of the iliolumbar ligaments.
On VA examination of the skin in December 1994, the
examination noted that the veteran had no complaints of any
active lesions, there was no evidence of boils or abscesses,
and there were no complaints of any pain associated with any
prior areas of treatment. Regarding ingrown toenails, there
also were no complaints or symptomatology mentioned on
examination. The examiner stated that in his medical opinion
any problems with ingrown toenails at the present time or in
the future would be unrelated to activities which took place
during the veteran's service.
On VA gynecological examination in December 1994, the
examiner commented that it would be hard to dispute the
presence of a fibroid at the time of the veteran's discharge
given the presence of the large fibroid found shortly more
than one year after the veteran's service. The probability
that the fibroid was present some 15 months prior to its
removal is a great probability since, as a rule, fibroids are
relatively slow growing benign tumors.
II. Analysis
a. Well Grounded Claim
(Residuals of a Left Salpingo-Oophorectomy)
Initially, we note that we have found that the veteran's
claim regarding residuals of a left salpingo-oophorectomy is
well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
That is, we find that she has presented a claim which is not
inherently implausible. See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
78, 81 (1990). Furthermore, after reviewing the record, we
are satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly
developed. No further assistance to the veteran is required
to comply with the duty to assist, as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a).
In order to establish service connection for a disability,
there must be objective evidence that establishes that such
disability either began in or was aggravated by service. 38
U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131. If a disability is not shown to be
chronic during service, service connection may nevertheless
be granted when there is continuity of symptomatology post-
service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Regulations also provide
that service connection may be granted for a disease
diagnosed after service discharge when all the evidence
establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38
C.F.R. § 3.303(d). A determination of service connection
requires a finding of the existence of a current disability
and a determination of a relationship between that disability
and an injury or disease incurred in service. Watson v.
Brown, 4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993).
Having carefully reviewed the medical evidence, the Board
notes that it is clear from the record that the veteran was
treated in service on numerous occasions for complaints of
abdominal pain and excessive uterine bleeding associated with
her menstrual cycle. It is also clear that following the
veteran's service, she continued to suffer from similar
symptomatology as documented by her records of treatment from
Dr. Johnson and the Tri-City Hospital in 1980. The veteran
underwent a left salpingo-oophorectomy and the removal of a
large uterine fibroid in 1980. Most recent VA gynecological
examination of the veteran, in December 1994, concluded that
the probability that the fibroid was present some 15 months
prior to its removal is a great probability since, as a rule,
fibroids are relatively slow growing benign tumors.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Board concludes
that, just as likely as not, the veteran’s disorder
necessitating a left salpingo-oophorectomy in 1980 arose
during her service and therefore any demonstrated residuals
of the left salpingo-oophorectomy are service-connected.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence of record is
in favor of the veteran's claim for residuals of a left
salpingo-oophorectomy, as service connection is as likely as
not. Extending the benefit of doubt in the veteran's favor,
the Board finds that service connection for this disorder is
warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.
b. Not Well Grounded Claims
(Hypertension, Boils of the Groin and Arm Pit Areas, Ingrown
Toenails)
The threshold question regarding the veteran's remaining
claims for hypertension, boils of the groin and arm pit
areas, and ingrown toenails, is whether the veteran has
presented well-grounded claims. A well-grounded claim is one
which is plausible. If she has not, the claims must fail and
there is no further duty to assist in the development of the
claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
78 (1990). A well-grounded claim requires more than an
allegation; the claimant must submit supporting evidence.
Furthermore, the evidence must justify a belief by a fair and
impartial individual that the claim is plausible. Tirpak v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). Also, in order for a claim
to be well-grounded, there must be competent evidence of a
current disability (medical diagnosis), of incurrence or
aggravation of a disease or injury in service (lay or medical
evidence), and of a nexus between the in-service injury or
disease and the current disability (medical evidence).
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995).
The evidentiary assertions by the veteran must be accepted as
true for the purposes of determining whether a claim is well-
grounded, except where the evidentiary assertion is
inherently incredible or when the fact asserted is beyond the
competence of the person making the assertion. King v.
Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993). As explained below, the
Board finds that the veteran has not presented well-grounded
claims of service connection for hypertension, boils of the
groin and arm pit areas, and ingrown toenails.
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by wartime
service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131. In addition, certain
diseases, such as hypertension, when manifest to a degree of
10 percent or more within one year after the veteran's
military service ended, may be presumed to have been incurred
in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.307, 3.309. This presumption is rebuttable by
affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113; 38
C.F.R. § 3.307(d).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, the Board finds
that there is no competent medical evidence of record
suggesting a connection between the veteran's currently
diagnosed hypertension and the veteran's service. In this
regard, the Board notes that the veteran's hypertension was
first documented in the medical record in December 1981, more
than 2 years after the veteran's service. By the veteran's
own history, her hypertension had not been diagnosed or
treated prior to December 1981. Furthermore, on separation
examination in April 1979, the veteran's blood pressure was
normal. Accordingly, there is simply no competent evidence
in support of the veteran's claim regarding hypertension.
Likewise, although the veteran was treated in service for
boils of the groin and arm pit areas and ingrown toenails,
there is no competent medical evidence of any nexus between
the veteran's service and any current disorder. In regards
to ingrown toenails, the most recent VA examination of the
veteran's skin, in December 1994, concluded that any problem
with the veteran's ingrown toenails at the present time or in
the future would be unrelated to activities which occurred
during the veteran's service. Thus, there is no competent
evidence of any nexus between the veteran's service and any
current disability regarding her claimed ingrown toenails.
In regards to the claimed boils of the groin and arm pit
areas, this disorder appears to have been acute and
transitory in service, resolving without chronic disability
and there is no competent evidence of any current disability
resulting from this claimed disorder which was treated during
the veteran's service. Several recent VA examinations found
no evidence of this claimed disorder. See Rabideau v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 142-143 (1992) (Service
connection may be granted for a chronic, not acute, disease
or disability); and Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223
(1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for
service-connected disease or injury to cases where such
injury resulted in a present disability).
Regarding all the veteran's claims, the Board has considered
the contentions of the veteran and, inasmuch as the veteran
is offering her own medical opinion and diagnoses, notes that
the record does not indicate that the veteran has any medical
expertise. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992).
The veteran's assertions of medical causation alone are not
probative because lay persons (i.e., persons without medical
expertise) are not competent to offer medical opinions.
Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 211 (1993); Grottveit v. Brown, 5
Vet.App. 91 (1993). Furthermore, lay assertions of medical
causation cannot constitute evidence to render a claim well
grounded. See Grottveit, at 93.
As noted previously, Caluza requires for a claim to be well
grounded, competent evidence of a current disability (medical
diagnosis), of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or
injury in service (lay or medical evidence), and of a nexus
between the in-service injury or disease and the current
disability (medical evidence). As such evidence has not been
presented regarding these claims, the Board finds that the
veteran has not submitted well-grounded claims of service
connection for hypertension, boils of the groin and arm pit
areas and ingrown toenails.
Where a claim is not well-grounded, the VA does not have a
statutory duty to assist a claimant in developing facts
pertinent to the claim. However, VA may be obligated under
38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (1991) to advise a claimant of evidence
needed to complete an application for a claim. This
obligation depends upon the particular facts of the case and
the extent to which the Secretary of the Department of
Veteran Affairs has advised the claimant of the evidence
necessary to be submitted with a VA benefits claim.
Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69 (1995).
In this instance, the VA has not been put on notice that
relevant evidence exists, or could be obtained, which, if
true, would make the veteran’s claims “plausible.”
Robinette, 8 Vet.App. at 80. Consequently, a remand is not
appropriate under the facts of this case. The RO fulfilled
its obligation under section 5103(a) in the statement of the
case and supplemental statements of the case which informed
the veteran of the reasons for the denial of her claims.
Furthermore, by this decision, the Board is informing the
veteran of the evidence which is lacking and that is
necessary to present well-grounded claims.
ORDER
Service connection for residuals of a left salpingo-
oophorectomy is granted.
Service connection for hypertension, boils of the groin and
arm pit areas and ingrown toenails is denied, since well-
grounded claims have not been presented.
REMAND
(The Board has previously outlined, in the Factual Background
section, the evidence regarding all the veteran's claims,
including her claimed low back disorder and muscle strain in
the left shoulder area.)
Regarding the veteran's claims seeking service connection for
a low back disorder and a muscle strain in the left shoulder
area, the Board notes that service medical records are
negative for any indication of shoulder or lumbar complaints
or injury. However, x-ray study in May 1991 reported
evidence of early degenerative changes in the entire lumbar
spine and also minimal arthritic changes in the left
shoulder. Furthermore, on VA orthopedic examination in May
1991, chronic lumbosacral strain and a strain of the rhomboid
major, left scapular region were diagnosed. However, more
recent VA examination in March 1994 indicated the left
shoulder was negative and in July 1994, the veteran was
diagnosed with tenderness of the iliolumbar ligaments.
The veteran has argued that her claimed low back disorder and
muscle strain in the left shoulder area is secondary to her
service-connected coccydynia. By rating decision in October
1991, the veteran was assigned a 10 percent disability
evaluation for her service-connected coccydynia.
The Board notes that although the veteran has undergone
several VA orthopedic examinations, none of these
examinations have addressed the issue of whether the
veteran's currently claimed lumbar disorder and/or any left
shoulder disorder is secondary to her service-connected
coccydynia. It is necessary that this case be remanded for
such an examination so that the Board may address the
question of whether the veteran's presently claimed low back
disorder and left shoulder disorder may have been caused or
aggravated by her prior service-connected coccydynia. Under
these circumstances, all pertinent medical records should be
obtained and the veteran should be scheduled for a VA
orthopedic examination, to determine the etiology of her
claimed low back disorder and left shoulder disorder, and
whether either claimed disorder are etiologically linked to
her current service-connected disabilities.
Under the circumstances described above, and in order to
ensure that the duty to assist the veteran under 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107 is satisfied, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:
1. The RO should contact the veteran to
obtain the names and addresses of all
medical care providers who have rendered
her medical attention for her claimed low
back disorder and left shoulder disorder.
The RO should request the veteran furnish
signed authorizations for release to the
VA of private medical records in
connection with each non-VA source
identified. The RO should attempt to
obtain any such private medical records
and any additional VA medical records,
not already on file, which may exist and
incorporate them into the claims folder.
2. The RO should then schedule the
veteran for special VA orthopedic
examination in order to ascertain the
nature and likely etiology of any claimed
low back disorder and left shoulder
disorder. All indicated tests and
studies should be performed and all
clinical findings should be set forth in
detail. Based on his/her review of the
case, the examiner should express an
opinion as to the medical probability
that any currently demonstrated back
disability or left shoulder disability is
either etiologically related to or
aggravated by a service-connected
disorder, as claimed by the veteran. The
examiner’s findings should reflect a
review of the entire historical record.
It is imperative that the claims folder
be made available and reviewed by the
examiner in connection with his/her
examination.
3. After the development requested
hereinabove has been completed, then the
RO should again review all the veteran’s
pending claims, including the issues of
secondary service connection for a low
back disorder and a left shoulder
disorder. If any determination remains
unfavorable to the veteran, the RO should
furnish her and her representative with a
supplemental statement of the case and
they should be given an opportunity to
respond thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order,
following appropriate procedures.
The purpose of the REMAND is to further develop the record.
The Board does not intimate any opinion, either factual or
legal, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case.
No action is required of the veteran until she receives
further notice.
STEPHEN L. WILKINS
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991 & Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans’
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits,
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub.
L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The date
that appears on the face of this decision constitutes the
date of mailing and the copy of this decision that you have
received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Appellate rights do not
attach to those issues addressed in the remand portion of the
Board’s decision, because a remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -